Jonathan Yee Blogs

Costco Hawaii kai has some nice leather couches to relax in while waiting for their one-hour photo to do my development (c-41) and scans (noritsu) of 35mm film. I normally carry my iPad2 and/or nook simple touch with a pair of etymotics hf3 to pass the time. This is forced but relaxing down time in a pleasant, partial skylit, a/c environment. It is a privilege of belonging to the peoples’ club.

Later I will pay less than $5 for the service, take my DVD home or Barnes & Noble that has free wifi, and review the scans on my macbookpro using Aperture. I generally don’t do any mods on the scans as they’ve been consistenty good on overall balance. Maybe out of a 36-exposure film roll, I might average two or three keepers that I’d upload to Facebook and/or flickr.

Then a bit of house keeping. The negs go into a file cabinet, envelop and all, as-is from Costco, in chronological order. And the digital photo files are stored on a portable hard drive, and backed up by Timemachine – a free Apple application that comes with the O/S- and still larger hard drive.

One thing about this workflow is that I have to apply myself is to consistently and better categorize all my photos on Aperture and Flickr. It appears that the metadata entered in Aperture does not get uploaded with Flickr.

Looks like time to walk over from my couch to the Costco photo counter…. Stopped by Longs Hawaii kai to redo the scans to compare their fuji scanner against costco’s noritsu. Results from the fuji will take overnight in-store and be ready tomorrow by noon, but I’ll drop by later after work.

Why do I like film?

Answers:

• Image quality. Film technology is current with the recent introductions of Portra 160/400, Ektar 100, to name a few. Skin tones and general color are all natural or pleasing, the look is organic – which is to say it looks like the image is something straight from nature v. digital which looks manufactured, and the recent emulsions are digital-ready. That is, they scan well [1]. Sure, much digital manipulation can be done with digital captures to simulate the look of film, but that means there’s a cost to this. To me it’s the time spent trying to get that satisfying look of film. Why not keep it simple? Shoot film, send it to the lab for development & scanning, and you’re done. The short talk: Shoot film in Portra, personally I’d overexpose a stop, and you’ll be blown away by the best skin tones ever! The job of a good photographer is to make people look good – film does this quite naturally with little or no fuss.

• The great film cameras, i.e., the ones having large success and/or market penetration, are direct and to the point. You will not (1) have to deal with a lot of buttons that might get accidentally pressed, (2) have to wade through numerous menus of a digital camera, (3) have to carry around power supplies or deal with power hungry appetites of a digital camera system; however, you will (4) have to use your mind with great intent on composition and capturing the moment, which will more likely produce better, more effective images, and in the end provide for more satisfying personal and economic results. Then (5) film cameras in large part are bargains. For example, as of this writing, one can find a used Nikon FM for under $200, a Hasselblad 500cm for under $500, or a legendary Leica M3 for less than $1000[2]. New high quality film cameras are also less costly. [Cite cost of Nikon F6 v. D3X/S and Leica MP/M7 v. M9/9-P.]

• I want to be me! If this means not getting lost in the overwhelming litter of digital captures, y0u’re in good company. Some estimates indicate film users comprise less than 10% of the total photographic market[3]. You will certainly stand out by being that odd-ball film user, more than this, however, is that if you actualize the potential of what film offers, your images will show for this, and you will stand out also for excellence. In an ever competitive market, differentiation matters. And if one considers photography an art, which deals with feelings, then one must also consider psychology and natural law. Part of this is recognizing that what you produce using film, as mentioned above, is that not only are your images are organic, but also that you are organic. Perhaps a weird and funny way to put this is that throwing non-organic stuff together with organic matter will produce compost that is subpar for the garden or environment. What you produce using film is compatible with how one visualizes an image and on par with great art. You are an analog system, film is an analog system, and image making follows the same analog, direct and organic path. There is no weird mathematical algorithm of clipping values of light according to some digital camera manufacturer’s own limited interpretation of compromised image making[4]. Keeping it analog where it counts, for the moment of capture, i.e., on film, provides for optimal imaging making at its best.

Example 2011 film photos, as-is, no fuss, no retouching, click for full image:

Notes

[1] Bayer interpolation

[2] Keh, Tamarkin, Ebay

[3] 2010 market study –

[4] latitude, Bayer, sensor economics

7/6/11. To be continued.